On Wed, Nov 01, 2006 at 12:55:45AM +0100, Francesco Poli wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:59:18 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:
>
> [...]
> > Nope, because you can ship the source code and the object file if you
> > wanted.
> >
> > Already now, major parts of debian/m
On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:06:50PM +0100, Ola Lundqvist wrote:
> Hi Sven
>
> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:32:02PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
> ...CUT...
> > > Will all reverse engineered drivers with hardcoded values be considered
> > > as closed source? Must you alwa
documentation of the registers
may be more of a source for such binary blobs, but it would in any case be no
worse than any other reverse-engineering effort out there.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
firmware is contained in a flash on the
card, it does not constitute a derivative work of the kernel, and in the same
way a free compressor which can generate compressed archive with builtin
uncompressor binaries, is not a derivative work of the compressed files it
contains.
More arguments on
argue stuff.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
regretable that Manoj losed patience suddenly
after more than a month an a half of discussing the issues. But we will see.
I think we all now await impatiently the statement of the RMs on what will
happend with the tg3 and acenic firmwares, and if we need a new vote or not.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t
> actually admitting the violation".)
>
> [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00090.html
> [2] http://lists.debian.org/debian-vote/2006/10/msg00102.html
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 07:09:53AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 10:28:20AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > There is some claims that some of those blobs represent just register dumps,
>
> This is a strawman, and Sven knows this as I have told him qu
ile 2/3 are most probably code. That makes a bit less
than 30 problematic ones.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:31:27PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> Walter Landry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers
> >> don't cause any
On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 11:58:51AM +0300, Kalle Kivimaa wrote:
> [Restricting to -legal, feel free to widen the audience if neccessary]
>
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > So, the RMs are making claims that those sourceless GPLed drivers don't
> > ca
you cannot
abide by all points, including the requirement for sources.
Since i am seen as not trusthy to analyze such problems, i think to deblock
this situation, it would be best to have a statement from debian-legal to back
those claims (or to claim i am wrong in the above).
Friendly,
Sven Luthe
ce I really
> figured it was just an honest mistake (which it was), but I probably came
> across as an "unimportant nobody" and they figured it wasn't worth wasting
> their time.
Yep, which is why it is important to find out the list of licensors/copyright
holder of
On Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 10:30:07AM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> [-devel trimmed]
>
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Please reread the discussion on debian-legal about this, where consensus was
> > mostly found to support this idea, and also remember that we conta
On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 08:18:28PM -0400, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
> > constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
> > pieces of GPLed code fo the
t doesn't allow us to distribute the
problematic code in those cases.
Since the firmware blobs are not derivative works of the kernel, but
constitute mere agregation in the same binary format, the authors of other
pieces of GPLed code fo the linux kernel cannot even sue us for distributing
t
with this interpretation.
A few very vocal people do. I guess they can be counted on the fingers of both
hands or so.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
urce format under the GFDL
(let's say latex code or sgml stuff or whatever), and you are distributing the
'compiled' version (let's say a pdf) ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
just have posted them to a bug report, but i understand the
author's concern, and as this was mentioned here in the past, there may be
some advice on how to best proceed on this, i hope.
the specs is of rather restricted technical content, more a description, at
least that is my impression.
ess catastrophe. In such an
> event, pdftex users would be better off than users who rely entirely
> on Adobe tools.
Current acrobat reader (well, it was at least a couple of years ago) licencing
forbids it to be distributed alongside other pdf generating tools like pdftex,
which is
the fonts ?
> As a last resort, maybe Thanh can ask Adobe with whom of the X
> Consortium they negotiated, maybe he can help.
If nothing else, they must have a copy of the paperwork around.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
heard of it. If it's
> trapped in XC, then we're stuffed. If it's deep within the annals of
> TOG, then they don't know about it on a surface inspection, and it
> would take absolutely ages to find out either way. If it's within
> TOG-X.Org, then no-one w
License
>
> LinuxSampler is licensed under the GNU GPL license with the exception
> that COMMERCIAL USE of the souce code, libraries and applications is
> NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission by the LinuxSampler
> authors. If you have questions on the subject please con
On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 12:08:33PM +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 09:29:52AM +, MJ Ray wrote:
> > > If non-discrimination doesn't cover groups persecuted by
> > > governments, who does it
s with.
Also, i belive he got caught because he was careless in his email handling,
not because he distributed a modified version of some free software with his
email address in it. Also notice that nothing in the CDDL clause force you to
include the email address or even your real name for c
will *always* come down to human judgment calls at one point or
> another.
So, is the spirit of the DFSG #5 to forbid choice-of-venue clauses, or the
anonymous contributions of the infamous dissident test ?
And who is to interpret the spirit of the different DFSG clauses :)
Friendly,
Sven
into the much more
> specific DSFG#5 just to please some literal-minded apologists who want
> the DFSG to be an objective ruleset rather than a set of guidelines,
> is just silly.
So, what do you propose a new DFSG rule addition for the above principle ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ut i believe we would do well in explicitly forbiding
integration in debian of anonymous code.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ieve that they do not know about licenses like the MPL
> and QPL).
Last time this came up about ocaml and the QPL, ocaml's upstream removed the
choice-of-venue clause from the licence, under the menace of the package
removal.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
der a different licence, i
believe more that they never even noticed that the licence did change. I
believe packages are only examined if they pass NEW, but then maybe i am wrong
on this one.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
potentially zero.
Ah, but the CDDL does take that in account, and mentions explicitly that all
epxenses will be paid by the loosing side.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
g the risk of not being fair or just or whatever the name is, and
in some way favour the author.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
esponsible for costs, including, without limitation,
court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees and expenses
how does that modify our acceptance of the choice-of-venue ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s and local lows quite ... let's say just strange.
>
> That's choice of law, rather than choice of venue. I was under the
> impression that it was generally accepted.
I wonder, let's say you are going to be judged in some random US court, even
if it is with German laws, you still wou
questionable
> license is free, then it's up to you to explain why it follows
> the DFSG and convince ftpmasters to admit the packages as a
> general rule. If you can't even convince this liberal crowd, ow!
Naturally, you could try to get the package in on the sly, like appa
O like cases, in
order to trace the modifications, and make sure they are not stolen or at
least prove it so.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
this one is the real problem, and is dependent on how
we decide on the choice-of-venue issue, and there is no clear precedent here,
altough in the past many have expressed themselves against it.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
can sue someone
only where he lives, is established, or makes business, at least this seems to
be the case in France. But then maybe this was only for contract law, or
something, not sure, as IANAL.
This is indeed a good question, and one which needs to be solved to solve this
issue.
Friendly,
Sven
o a lesser degree, since it is possible that the defendant will have more
trouble finding a lawyer familiar with the laws of a foreign juridiction.
Now, i wonder what law and venue are applicable if no such clause is present ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, Sep 09, 2005 at 12:00:54AM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Indeed, the "choice of venue is a fee" argument is just that: an
> > > opinion which has at best no clear roots in the DFSG, ther
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:21:57PM +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On Sep 08, Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2) Any argument i may have are only the lame repetition of the opinion of
> > a
> > single person here on debian-legal.
> Indeed, the
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 08:57:59PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 20:24, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > --cut--
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 06:24:34PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> > On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> > --cut--
> > > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at t
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 04:53:12PM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> On Thursday 08 September 2005 16:21, Sven Luther wrote:
> --cut--
> > Yeah, well, i did an apt-get install star and looked at the copyright file,
> > so i am not sure what facts i have to believe th
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:55:56PM +0200, Dalibor Topic wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> >packages which comes with this clause :
> >
> >9. MISCELLANEOUS.
>
> [snip]
>
> > Th
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 03:10:56PM +0200, Joerg Jaspert wrote:
> Sven Luther schrieb:
>
> > Notice that we already accepted a CDDLed program in debian, namely the star
> > packages which comes with this clause :
>
> Wrong.
Well, i installed the package in sid (star 1.5a6
On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 02:06:12AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2005 at 10:14:50AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 02:48:15PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 10:47:59PM +1000, Paul TBBle Hampson wrote:
> >
atic linking is if you
use the LGPL. I am told that also the distribution of something in the sole
intent of being linked with GPL code, is already problematic, but that is up
to interpretation i guess.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It is not a statement about
> GPL-licensed work in general.
To quote RMS (this morning on the OpenSolaris list :
The user programs link with libc but not directly with the kernel.
People generally consider the kernel and libc not to be one combined
program, so the GPL will not have effe
nd comatibility with the (L)GPL is not problematic for this.
As i understand from previous posts here, the main problem was concerning the
choice-of-venue clause, not sure if the other concerns of the start of the
year did indeed change or not, as there where various variations of the
licence.
F
o more harm than good.
See :
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00270.html
One week ago. I think the conclusion was that it is non free because there are
a set of unmodifiable fonts. Not sure if the above thread was forwarded back
to them though, or just debate in the empty
o much of a problem
with the one you quoted about the mc, but then i may be missing something.
What is the legal CDDL status anyway ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
licence, and probably cut down lawyer
fees. (That said, if you are discussing with the lawyer ...)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
e-distributors like ubuntu -
> but still not DFSG-free.
So, what is it you want ? Full redistribution right outside of enigma as well
?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
ut it needs to be DFSG-free.
Well, i was just surprised that you listed the second alternative as asking
the author to GPL it, instead of asking for a fre elicence, but i believe that
in this case, any licence that allows distribution of the music track should
be ok, not sure though.
Friendly,
Sv
; (eventually making a non-free enigma-music package, but I'm too lazy)
> - ask the author of the song if he'd GPL-licence it
> - move enigma as-is to non-free
Erich, applying the GPL to a documentation is ok, but don't you think you are
pushing things a bit hard by applying
e from the software community though,
so probably didn't even consider the free software licences. Probably pushed
for creation of NWN content and such also.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 05:32:37PM +0200, Achim Bohnet wrote:
> Hi,
> news about CECILL's DSFG status?
As far as i understood, CECILL can be transformed into the GPL, so it is DFSG
free by default. This seemed to be the concensus about this here last time it
was discussed.
Friendly,
h that rectifies the
firmware licence, and they will hardly be able to reject it, or at least
provide technical reasons why they do, which we can then fix.
We need to provide a reply to broadcom soon too, preferably this week. I am
overbusy this week though :/
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
he meaning of "accompanying" the firmware blob, because it's
> inside the end-user packaging "shrink-wrap". No one cares whether
> that file winds up inside, say, the initrd image. IANAL, IANADD, etc.
Well, the initrd image, and more plainly the d-i .udebs are in q
On Wed, May 25, 2005 at 08:53:44PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2005, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > + * Permission is hereby granted for the distribution of this firmware
> > > data
> > > + * in hexadecimal or equivalent format, provided this copyright no
etation and deciding to go
sue-happy ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
the non-free part of our
archive, including a working .udeb.
Thanks in advance,
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
tion is simply to move the affected drivers to non-free, and
provide mechanisms for the user to load these installer modules with the free
installer, or have a couple of builds of a non-free installer which include
these non-free modules.
Saying that we are dogmatic, without even caring to understand what the
current reality is doesn't strike me at the most reasonable way to discuss
such issues.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
data in a auto-uncompressing executable, or the firmware from
the firmware flasher in a all-in-one firmware upgrade binary.
> At least that's my opinion; AIUI, Sven Luther believes it is possible if
> the firmware has a decent (but not necessarily free) license.
Indeed, the sole probl
re is only two things, Hardware, which is stuff you can touch, and
software, which you can't and runs on it.
Or can you really give any serious argumentation on why you would consider
firmware or microcode as something else as software ? I doubt a judge would
follow you on this, and in an
ot apply.
>
> In particular, the end of GPL #2 does not provide a blanket exception
> for all forms of aggregation; it specifically speaks about aggregation
> "on a volume of a storage or distribution medium".
Read my argumentation, comment on it, and be prepared to consider the
is completely wrong to say that the object file is merely an
> aggregation. The two components are being coupled much more tightly
> than in the situation that the GPL discribes as "mere aggregation".
So read the analysis and comment on it if you disagree, but let's take i
n of the firmware and hence the
> source code under the GPL."
I strongly disagree. This could be an open door to to anyone claiming that
whatever binary is the prefered form of modification.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "
Debian stance is that the kernel proper
> and the binary firmware are "merely aggregated" in a volume of storage (
> ie. system memory).
The problem is that you can only argue it is mere agregation, if the copyright
notice doesn't de-facto put said firmware blobs under th
copies of the windows
installation CD, or for that matter to duplicate music CDs ?
I would be rather interested in knowing how you came to that conclusion :)
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t if you consider firmware as being a derivative
work, you should consider it a derivative work also when it is flashed on the
prom of a pci card or what not, is decisive enough to make those firmware
blobs not derivative works of the kernel they are under.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
t way an overlooked tag would
> lead to failure on the side of caution, and new tags could be added to
> the system without retroactively reclassifying all packages in
> non-free.
Seems cool.
CCing to debian-legal in order to obtain advice on the different terms and
classificatio
On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 02:31:36AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 11:05:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> >...
> > > If your statement was true that Debian must take more care regarding
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 09:06:58PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > > It sounds like you are now looking at the question of are the
> > > huge string of hex characters the preferred form for making
> > > modific
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 10:56:47PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:57:01PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >...
> > The other point is that other entities, like redhat, or suse (which is now
> > novel and thus ibm) and so have stronger backbones, and can mo
On Thu, Apr 07, 2005 at 05:46:27AM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> Sven Luther <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 01:22:36PM -0600, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> > > For tg3 a transition period shouldn't be needed as firmware loading
&
ldn't be needed as firmware loading
> is only needed on old/buggy hardware which is not the common case.
> Or to support advanced features which can be disabled.
>
> I am fairly certain in that case the firmware came from the bcm5701
> broadcom driver for the tg3 which I think
On Wed, Apr 06, 2005 at 09:34:44AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
> Le mercredi 06 avril 2005 à 02:10 +0200, Sven Luther a écrit :
> > > It merely depends on the definition of "aggregation". I'd say that two
> > > works that are only aggregated can be easily dis
.
Thanks for your help, and i believe in the past few days this issue has been
making nice progres, and will hopefully be solved to everyone's satisfaction.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mware and code parts.
Josselin, please read the thread i linked to in debian-legal, and as nobody
really gave reason to oppose it, i believe we have consensus that those
firmware blobs constitute mere agregation, provided they are clearly
identified and properly licenced, which they are not always.
irmware blobs are found are totally
irelevant, since we reached consensus on debian-legal in marsh that they
constitute mere agregation, where either the file or the elf binary are just
the distribution media.
And those binary blobs currently come under the GPL or are not licenced at
all, so taki
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> >
it would be enough.
Or even adding some comment in the toplevel COPYING file saying that firmware
blobs come under their own licence or something such, and then listing all the
firmware blobs and their licencing condition in a separate toplevel file would
be enough.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
u have to consider the case of some of those companies ending in
the arms of a legally predative company and pulling another SCO at us.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I don't believe there is already
support for a second ramdisk in todays kernel.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
copyright
> statements/exemptions/something to the binary blobs where they are now.
Yes, indeed, i am searching for a short-time clarification, but in the long
term the separate firmware solution is indeed better, altough more work and
more involved.
That said, the work to identify the firmware blobs
should not
matter, and only the original checkin you did is the one we need to account
for.
I understand this is bothersome to everyone, but the code base will be a
cleaner one once we solve this issue, don't you think ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:19:24AM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
>
> > I am only saying that the tg3.c and other file are under the GPL, and
> > that the firmware included in it is *NOT* intented to be under the
> >
On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 12:23:29AM -0400, Jan Harkes wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
&
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:24:05PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> It assuredly can't hurt to add a few lines of comments to tg3.c, and since it
> is probably (well, 1/3 chance here) you who added said firmware to the tg3.c
> file, i guess you are even well placed to at least exclude
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:47:36PM -0400, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> >Yep, but in the meantime, let's clearly mark said firmware as
> >not-covered-by-the-GPL. In the acenic case it seems to be even easier, as
> >the
> >firmware is in a separate ace
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:55:27PM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> > Nope, i am aiming to clarify this issue with regard to the debian kernel, so
> > that we may be clear with ourselves, and actually ship s
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 11:05:03PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:23:08PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On M
our name was found in the tg3.c case, and you seem to care about
this too, what is your take on this proposal ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:58:30PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 09:29:45PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > Mmm,
nels are messed beyond recognition in this anyway, but they are
freezed so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:17:46PM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:27:53PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Mmm, probably that 2001 discussion about the keyspan firmware, right ?
> >
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2001/04/msg00145.html
> >
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:12:48PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 20:21 +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> > > Then let's see some acts. We (lkml) are not the ones with the percieved
> > > pr
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 10:51:30AM -0700, Greg KH wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 04:16:47PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > This is just the followup on said discussion, involving the larger LKML
> > audience, in order to get this fixed for good. As said, it is just a mere
> >
1 - 100 of 464 matches
Mail list logo
